Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Julian Foad wrote:
>
>>non-zero return code. Does your patch do that? I think it should.
>
> That's taken care of by APR, i.e. exiting after the errhandler is called.
> It is returning -1 (!). That hasn't changed with my commit. The only
> change is that the reason for termination is available through stderr.
OK, good.
>>Well, isn't shared memory (in the pool) an easier kind of IPC in this
>>situation?
>
> And a mutex, or condition variable shared among processes, which isn't
> available everywhere.
[...]
> Of course it gets a copy of the pool. A fork doesn't leave any memory
> shared.
OK, thanks for explaining.
[...]
> No, I'm talking of two commands started in sequence. NOte that the output
> from the child is asynchronous and may well happen after svn_io_start_cmd
> returns.
Ah, yes. I had completely failed to see that.
>>if that's the case, I'm happy with the stderr-plus-exit-code solution.
>
> OK. I'll fix the problem philip pointed out (and add a note to the
> docstring). If someone comes up with a better solution that isn't too
> complex and that is portable, of course I wouldn't object:-)
>
> Thanks for the discussion,
Thank you too, for your patience. I (obviously) knew almost nothing about it,
but now I know a tiny bit more. :-)
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 25 17:39:41 2005